Printable View
I know lots of people who pull out the "I voted for Obama" card and come to find out they did it in the primaries as part of Operation Chaos or whatever that was called. So you voted for Obama in the November 4th election even though all he did on the campaign trail was bitch about the nation's disparity in wealth and how he was going to push a public health plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
Because they don't know what costs they will have to bare for Obamacare, Crap & trade, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
A good businessman doesn't overextend himself financially with such hate the rich unknowns on the horizon.
There is a book called The Millionaire Next Door that was written about 15 years ago. I would highly recommend this book to people that are obsessed with this so-called wealth "inequality".
If we were all blessed with the same intelligence, creativity, skill, etc., then I might have more of an issue with there being a large wealth discrepancy.
Kobe Bryant makes about $280K per game. That doesn't even include money from endorsements, etc. Is that fair? Well, I guess it's not fair that I wasn't born with his athletic ability. Life isn't fair. Get over it.
So there is or isnt a "trickle down" effect?
So we should or shouldn't support tax cuts on the richers?
Yep. I love how libtards like to villify bankers, traders, doctors, etc. Any of you resident libtards ever checked out the financial statements for your Democratic "leaders" in Congress? Pelosi's yearly financial statements would make all of the above, as well as quite a few athletes, blush.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Why do you see these charts as a vilification of the rich?
Some people are idiot wanna-be serfs, who read books about how awesome rich people are before willingly lubing up their own asses and bending over.
Some people aren't.
Because it makes his argument easier if he assumes that unsound premise. Same reason spursmania and DarrinS said the same stupid shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
work=tahoes
I guess they've been pricing in Obamacare since 1980.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Your answer is flat out wrong according to the information put forth in this thread.
-Manny
[QUOTE=Aggie Hoopsfan;4230099]Yep. I love how libtards like to villify bankers, traders, doctors, etc. Any of you resident libtards ever checked out the financial statements for your Democratic "leaders" in Congress? Pelosi's yearly financial statements would make all of the above, as well as quite a few athletes, blush.[/QUOTE
Can you just do me a favor and point out when the trickle down is going to start? These figures all point to a trickle up, not tricke down, effect.
Can you explain that please?
[quote=Jekka;4230901]Is this still Manny posting or is it Janelle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jekka
Because these are mine:
1.With this wealth inequality we have, it means bullshit. If we have such a huge wealth gap but a high standard of living, then fuck it. Beats having wealth parity and a shit standard of living (ex Cuba).
2. Wealth does not equal income. Wealth is assets, and if the middle class can't acquire assets then it can never accrue wealth. Instead the poor and middle class are buying liabilities like expensive houses, cars, gadgets, instead of bonds, real estate, or starting a buisiness.
3. Your solutions for this problem are going to be shit. First you bitch about wealth inequality, but then want to pass more buisiness regulation like the provision in the Obamacare that makes small up and coming buisiness who have over a certain amount of chains to pay lab fees to have a nutrition menu. So That's going to hinder small buisinesses from acquiring and creating new wealth.
4. If the problem is that the poor and middle class has no access to creating wealth, your solution is not wealth distrubution but income distrubution while still maintaining the regulation that benefit big corporations and hinder small buisiness and or enterprise. So at most Cheryl and Don will get 4000 dollars in tax refunds at the end of the year from the rich, only to pay off debt to acquire more debt because 4000 dollars isn't gonna do much shit to start a buisiness to comply with govt reg.
5. You're the problem, progressives are. Corporations are running circles around you and they are willing to pay taxes to uncle sam so long as your party ensures through tough reg that it keeps competitors out of the job market.
There is a trickle down effect in that job oppurtunities open up to the poor. But you can't distribute wealth, only income. Money isn't going to make one spend it on assets. More than likely the middle class will spend it on Plasmas. That's not the rich's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Govt reg doesn't help out either.
Wow, lots of strawmen, moving goalposts and the like here.
Manny's point is rather obvious. Income gaps are important. Why? Because, as exstatic mentioned, the larger the gap, the more the people at the bottom are wondering why they put up with it. That's how most revolutions get started, after all.
Hell, look at OUR revolution. America wasn't even that poor... we were just pissed that we couldn't sell our goods the way we wanted, and we didn't have a say in our taxation. That was enough for us to go against what was then the mightiest country in the world.
And people think that income inequalities aren't anything to worry about?
As far as the whole "trickle-down" effect, where's the evidence? Manny's posted a ton of data that show as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That goes in direct evidence against the "trickle-down" theory.
Those who bitch about the middle-class having "bad spending habits" are missing the point: even including bad spending habits, the gap is bigger.
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...an-workers.jpg
This chart is the one that really goes against the trickle-down effect, in my mind. How can CEO pay jump so dramatically, while worker pay stays flat?
Is it a form of collusion, where every company keeps wages low, knowing that people will have to work for essentials? Is it simple greed? Is it regulations? I'd like to see an honest THEORY about how one class can jump so much while another stays grounded.
America is becoming more socialist! Like Europe! SEE!?!
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...-countries.jpg
Oh... well... the rich are getting taxed WAY MORE than ever! Taxes are increasing to the point where the rich can barely afford to make a profit!
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...r-the-rich.jpg
.... obviously, the charts are wrong because they were created by a liberal...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Does Kobe have an agent? An accountant? Maids? Landscapers? Pool maintenance? Interior designers?
CEO's get a big chunk of their compensation in the form of stock options. The workers don't. Therefore CEO pay will follow the market, up or down, while worker pay stays constant. If you'd like worker pay to track CEO pay more closely, then all you need to do is take a big chunk of the workers pay and give it to them in the form of stock options instead of cash. How many workers do you think would be in favor of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuronyourFace
I agree with your basic sentiment; and am (really) conservative as they come; but this current accumulation of wealth has not been a healthy one. It is not, in large part, based on ingenuity and hard work - it is based on manipulation of markets, power centers, etc...."Corporatism" is the catch all for it.
In 1995 I finished a one year stint as a network administrator at A&M - at the end of which I had $1,800 in a retirement account funded through that job. I never rolled that into my other accounts; I moved it aside by itself into an investment account - a moderate growth mutual fund.
Today, FIFTEEN years later - that account has a value of $1,500 - but the marketing material for that same account claims 10 - 15% growth over most of that period; meaning I ought to have 5 grand. Somebody got my $300 - and the proceeds for the interest on that account; but it ain't me.
That is happening in much larger numbers on retirement accounts all over th place - AND, as we all know, funny crap with mortgages, petroleum; you name it; the "Wall Street Bankers" are robbing us blind; they design the schemes, run the schemes and are the ONLY ones who understand the schemes; the rest of us are too busy working to pay attention to it. They also make sure and keep Congress and the WH in their pocket to make damn sure nothing ever gets curtailed.
These are not the Fords and Edisons - or even the Carnegies and Rockefellers! These cats are useless - not doing any good for anyone - but, IMO are a GREAT number of the ultra rich included in that chart.
I own a small business with 30 employees; and I'm doing fine - trying to do it the old fashioned way; those guys piss me off as much, or more, than the "free loaders" of our society; but do FAR more damage.
So has CEO compensation changed that greatly since 1994? 1994 seems to be a clear delineation marker as far as CEO pay ramping upward greatly.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
And per Manny's chart earlier, the wealth of the middle-class CAN raise upwards, and did seem higher in the 50's, 60's and 70's, which somewhat defeats your thesis.
Honestly, I'm not being a prick, just looking for answers.
There's a problem with that theory; the people who perform the above could theoretically get new jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I don't think job creation=trickle down.
After all, isn't it a tenet that the majority of the poor will benefit from the rich having more money? If so, how does that work in the face of evidence that income inequality is greater than the past, and the poor have less wealth?
Are we going by the "young people don't know the value of a dime!" reasoning?
I hesitate to think that the Fords and the Edisons wouldn't, or didn't, try to use any schemes available to make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Hate to say it, but when people profess the idea that "Greed is good"... well, it's pretty obvious that people are going to try to game the system.
In today's world, where you can generate billions of transactions and cross-scan those for correlations, and any other number of technological wonders... it just gives more ways for people to game the system, especially if said system is byzantine.
1994 was the year the tech boom started, and that pulled the entire stock market higher. Executives who have compensation that depends in large part on what happens in the stock market will benefit disproportionately during such times. If you look at 2000-2002 though, executive compensation fell drastically when worker compensation did not. Again, it's all about one group's income being incredibly volatile, for better or worse, because it's tied to the stock market, and one group's income not being volatile, for better or worse, because it's based strictly on wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Look at what the high end tax rates were back then. As late as 1963 there was a 91% income tax bracket. Now that tax rate is 35%. It's become a lot easier for the rich to make money. Personally, I'm okay with it, a 91% tax bracket is 100% absurd IMHO. But everyone's free to make up their own mind as to whether or not that's been a good thing.Quote:
And per Manny's chart earlier, the wealth of the middle-class CAN raise upwards, and did seem higher in the 50's, 60's and 70's, which somewhat defeats your thesis.
No worries.Quote:
Honestly, I'm not being a prick, just looking for answers.